A view of the M25. Photo: Image courtesy of Just Stop Oil.
Action replay: Teresa Belton on disruptive protest
‘I believe greater discernment is needed.’
Last summer, five Just Stop Oil (JSO)protesters were imprisoned for climbing gantries on the M25, attempting to cause gridlock across southern England in protest against the government’s support for fossil fuels. I admired the bravery of the forty-five JSO protesters who climbed gantries on the motorway, who included at least two Quakers. Yet, their action, which was supported by other Friends, made me uncomfortable. I questioned whether ‘peaceful’ was a legitimate description. While they weren’t violent, their actions did cause personal harm. The disruptions led to a man missing his father’s funeral, and several others missing important hospital appointments. Can such actions truly be categorised as ‘peaceful’ like marches or rallies in Trafalgar Square? The term ‘highly disruptive’ would be more accurate.
This same scrutiny is needed both ways. In the Public Order Bill debate in parliament, one MP described JSO protests as ‘violent acts’. But true violence causes bodily harm. In June last year, Amy Pritchard was sentenced to twelve months in prison for smashing a reinforced glass window at JPMorgan, the world’s biggest financial supporter of the fossil fuel industry. She shattered the glass but caused no injuries. While breaking glass could be seen as violent, is it justifiable to label this in the same way as the anti-immigration riots that broke out last summer? Those saw mobs attacking police officers and attempting to set fire to a hotel housing asylum seekers. The two cases are not the same.
‘How effective are these actions?’
The M25 activists, especially seventy-eight-year-old Gaie Delap (see news, 7 February), faced huge injustice from the legal system. I wrote to the minister for justice calling for her release. But the injustice they faced is separate from how we should characterise their actions.
Quakers emphasise discernment, a process that can be uncomfortable and involve painful, direct speech, even when done with love. I believe greater discernment is needed in how protests are portrayed, especially by Friends. We must recognise that, while the cause and courage behind a protest may be justified, a particular protest form might be mistaken. Even when protesters are acting out of concern for the future, the crucial question remains: how effective are these actions in raising awareness about climate change and driving societal change? Recent research (see, for example, ‘The Activist’s Dilemma’ in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) suggests that extreme protest tactics, perceived as highly disruptive or harmful to others, typically reduce public support for the activists’ cause. They diminish support for the activist group, lower willingness to join the movement, and reduce backing for climate policies. They may actually be counterproductive. Actions that target the corporate property of businesses that support fossil fuels seem to me to be entirely justified. But the research serves as a warning that protests causing indiscriminate harm are likely ineffective.
Comments
“The disruptions led to a man missing his father’s funeral, and several others missing important hospital appointments.”
These consequences could easily have been anticipated.
The people who were unable to get to planned appointments & operations may have had to wait months for rescheduled times, leading to physical consequences possibly including death.
Surely that is equivalent to deliberate violence towards those people.
By Moyra Carlyle on 28th February 2025 - 10:06
Please login to add a comment
